The idea is that a policy disproportionately harming a racial minority, however inadvertently, is unconstitutional.
Is all disproportionate harm forbidden or is disproportionate harm to a majority OK?
In the former case would any policy pass such a test?
And why should it?
And in the latter case, what is in their minds?
Oh, I see; racial animus directed at whites.
Supreme Court To Hear Another Case On Housing Bias
As for the US constitution, well, the bloody thing is the laughing stock of the universe, by now.
So I suppose it doesn't much matter that the claim such things are unconstitutional is egregious nonsense.
Oh, and harm, too, seems to be in the lie of the beholder, as seen in this odd and convoluted dispute about low cost housing.
No comments:
Post a Comment